Any news about FSR2.0 and about nvme ssd
- Thread starter tomalus
- Start date
Some guy is going to, or has, quit because they didn't add v2.0 in update 12 that isn't out yet. So I am very unsure.
It barely makes any difference moving from a traditional hard drive to a SSD. Moving from a regular SSD to a NVME will make absoloutely zero difference.
ED isn't that heavy on asset loading.
ED isn't that heavy on asset loading.
This is something I keep telling people on XBox who have recently picked up a Series console, how any game designed to run off hard drives basically caps out its load times well before it reaches the limits of even a SATA SSD, let alone those of a gen4 PCIe interface. Hence older games will load exactly as fast off the new consoles' internal drives as they will off a slower QLC SSD running over USB. Digital Foundry proved as much in their comparisons, and I have independently verified those results with my own hardware.
Good to know - I expected at least some difference with NVME but if that's not the case i might as well save some money
Yeah, the load times we're talking here, there's not really much more to be had in terms of speed gains anyway. When loading XBox One games that took minutes to load off the 5200RPM internal drive of that console, on a USB connected SATA SSD instead, and getting load times of between 4 and 11 seconds depending on the game, any further improvement would be marginal gains and extremely diminishing returns for the increased price at best.Good to know - I expected at least some difference with NVME but if that's not the case i might as well save some money
But yeah, I get more or less the same load times in all the XBox games I tested whether running them from the internal gen4 NVMe drive of the Series X, my gen3 firecuda 510 NVMe in a Rog Arion enclosure, or my Samsung QVO SATA in an icybox enclosure. They just cannot physically load any faster at this point, and the rest of that read speed overhead on the drives is wasted on them.
This should hold true for PC games designed prior to a certain point. Look at games like CP77 and it actually has a toggle for a mode designed for accessing data from a hard drive instead of an SSD. I've not tested it myself as I don't have a system capable of running it that actually has a mechanical drive to install it on.
Truth. All that additional read/write overhead definitely allows you to do a lot more with the drive at the same time as playing
There's no info on whether FDev will add FSR 2.0 to ED but it seems likely they will at some point, perhaps even in the next update?
I changed from a regular m.2 SATA SSD to an NVMe Samsung 970 Evo plus last year & it made no noticeable difference to ED, nor did faster (and more) RAM.
I moved my Epic account copy from HDD to a reasonable SSD and had a noticable difference in loading times.
But, like yourself, moving my Frontier loaded files from SSD to a Corsair 6.6GB/s NVMe drive gave no noticeable difference - probably only a few seconds better. Curious.
A ssd on a sata connection is slower compared to a ssd on a nvme connection. Max throughput on sata is limited to around 500 mb/s where nvme can get up to 3500-6000 mb/s
However the chips feeding this interface are usually the same on both ssd types. Also the game requesting data is not asking for sequential data. So reads never reach these very high speeds as a game tends to request multiple files. Not just one big file. Another reason you will hardly notice the different is that the waiting during loading times is dependent on a lot of other factors like cpu and cpu to gpu communication.
However the chips feeding this interface are usually the same on both ssd types. Also the game requesting data is not asking for sequential data. So reads never reach these very high speeds as a game tends to request multiple files. Not just one big file. Another reason you will hardly notice the different is that the waiting during loading times is dependent on a lot of other factors like cpu and cpu to gpu communication.
I can't swear to it, but my hunch is not a lot. ED really doesn't have a lot of loading screen time anyway; once you're in the cockpit, it's seamless.
I have almost exactly the same config; a 2.5" SSD ~500mb/s, and two m.2 SSDs ~3000mb/s each. In general, I find little difference in real world situations. Most applications can't actually do anything with the data at the speed the drive can deliver it. It can be faster, but it isn't lots faster. A number of reviews have tagged these drives as being un-saturatable by a single user doing normal tasks, basically requiring a data centre to stress them.
HDD -> SSD, about 7-10x faster, amazing, always always get off spinning drives!
"Slow" SSD -> "fast" SSD... subjectively, maybe 1.5x faster. Nice but not essential.
Basically, if you have space on the fast drive, go ahead and move the game, but it'd be hard to recommend buying a fast m.2 drive if you already have a sata drive that is big enough.
The majority of ED's loading time isn't loading off the drive at all, it's due to extremely poorly written file loading code, so the improvement with a fast SSD isn't much. The worst offender is when loading the game's English text where it loops tens of billions of times doing nothing useful. In other words, the vast majority of the game's loading time is loading quips like "Your doom approaches.", not textures, audio, or any other large files.
Yeah, I honestly feel like the real difference that was made in my life by shifting to using SSDs is less about the boost to many games, and more how formerly, if I wanted to copy 8TB between two drives, such as when backing one up, I'd set it going one evening as I went to bed, and it'd finish up around teatime the next day. Whereas now that same copying of a drive completes in a couple of hours.
Of course, I still keep a slower HDD backup of each of those drives just for their greater reliability for long-term storage.
A mechanical HDD will bottleneck loading times in this game, assuming the rest of the system isn't ancient. However, most people would never notice the difference between any SATA SSD made in the last dozen years and the fastest NVMe drive in existence, even on a very fast system.
ED isn't a particularly I/O heavy game.
An SSD might only be two to twenty fold faster in sequential transfers than a mechanical drive, but will generally be at least thirty to one-hundred times as fast at random access performance.
Personally, I notice a huge improvement in general system responsiveness and game load times between even some of the fastest mechanical drives and even old/cheap SSDs. About the only thing I use mechanical drives for now is archival, video recording, and some temp/scratch work, where their two remaining advantages (price per unit of capacity and unlimited write endurance) still matter.
ED isn't a particularly I/O heavy game.
An SSD might only be two to twenty fold faster in sequential transfers than a mechanical drive, but will generally be at least thirty to one-hundred times as fast at random access performance.
Personally, I notice a huge improvement in general system responsiveness and game load times between even some of the fastest mechanical drives and even old/cheap SSDs. About the only thing I use mechanical drives for now is archival, video recording, and some temp/scratch work, where their two remaining advantages (price per unit of capacity and unlimited write endurance) still matter.
Agreed, and I'm still impressed with the throughput that the modern mechanical drives have achieved compared to one or two decades ago.
Absolutely the slowest SSD is going to outperform a mechanical drive (Although the 10,000rpm one sitting in one of my old systems still gives my SATA SSDs a run for their money on windows boot times and game loading) but for the overwhelming majority of games developed before NVMe drives became commonplace, there's no detectable difference in load time boosts between the two types of SSD, Nowadays ofc devs are starting to build into their games the expectation of being able to do things like pull more, higher quality textures all at once from the drive than would be possible on a mechanical one.
Ah, I remember the joys of when console devs first began getting around the limitations of those systems by having games come on two discs, one which installed to the HDD and one which streamed stuff right off the DVD simultaneously, and the joy of discovering that the devs had considered the options open to players, and it would also let you install the play disc to a separate USB drive and loading it from that would eliminate texture pop caused by the bottleneck of optical read speeds
But yeah, I do a lot of transfers of large amounts of data between systems, and for that SSDs deliver the real godsend of time saving for me, because on mechanical drives, transferring several terabytes at a time was a task I frequently needed to book a whole day for, and a single error in the process could set me back a bunch of time. Now it completes while I'm making a snack.
I likewise keep HDDs for heavy backup storage, because of the aforementioned price per unit, and yeah, for stuff involving a whole lot of write cycles.
Last edited:
I remember having set up a ramdisk on MS-DOS to copy one of the seven floppies of King's Quest V to memory to have faster loading times for the part of the game I was currently in.
I disagree a bit.
I have an XB One S, moving Elite from internal hard-drive to an external usb30 ssd shaved about 45-60s from the startup time - and that comes mainly from access times not from transfer speed
However, i would not expect running the same Elite from a Series X to load much faster than it loads on my XB1s using an external SSD
Last edited: